PARTY OF PRINCIPLE? THE GREENS AND POPULATION POLICY

Natalie Sloan and William J. Lines The Australia Greens were once an environmental party with a clear vision of the role of population size and growth in increasing environmental stress in Australia. During the late 1990s they abandoned this vision for new goals centred on social justice and international human rights. This increased their vote among a narrow section of the electorate — educated urban elites. But it deprived Australian politics of a voice that speaks for the Australian environment.

The Australian Greens is a political party a) Managing our own population that prides itself on being, and is widely growth in accordance with more equi- perceived as being, a party of principle. table consumption patterns in relation But they have been contradictory and to the international context; and convoluted in determining exactly what b) Redirecting the bulk of aid towards those principles are, particularly as they eradicating poverty and towards those relate to population and immigration. programs which empower women.2 Originally promulgated in 1995, the These motherhood statements remained party’s population policy was revised in unchanged in the 1998 and 2002 revisions. 1998 and again in 2002. With each revi- The 1995 policy had also advocated action sion the Greens altered their principles, towards achieving a ‘sustainable lessened their commitment to limiting population’ through managing per capita population growth, and increasingly consumption levels and the use of emphasised technology and human inge- technology. It also claimed that developing nuity as the solution to the problem of countries had increasingly adopted the ensuring ecological sustainability. They consumption patterns of industrialized replaced concern about population and countries, resulting in overgrazing and environmental degradation with a social over cropping.3 The 1998 and 2002 docu- justice, global human rights platform. ments elaborated this argument and Subsequently they increased their vote — emphasised ecological responsibility to but chiefly among a narrow, elite future generations and to non-human segment of the electorate: the most highly species. educated. There the consistency between the Three headings — principles, goals three documents ended. In 1995 the and short term targets — form the Greens proposed a policy that would ‘sta- Greens’ policy shell. In 1995, under the bilise [Australia’s] population numbers at heading principles, the party outlined a a level which is both precautionary and domestic and global policy based on ecologically sustainable’.4 Sustainability, ecological sustainability, intergeneration- it suggested, was determined by resource al equity, and social justice.1 The declara- use and technology as well as by tion cited the need to apply the precau- population size. The 1998 and 2002 revis- tionary principle in evaluating the human ions omitted all reference to the size of the impact on the environment and advocated population as a determinate of that Australia contribute towards a glob- sustainability. ally sustainable population through: The 1998 document states:

People and Place, vol. 11, no. 2, 2003, page 16 Development of population policy should and accepted in the wider society. be based on research which includes While the policy revisions refer to the modeling of consumption and impact in Earth’s carrying capacity they also claim order to determine a sustainable that the relationship between people and population. The process of determining the environment is complex. According population policy should be open and to the Greens, carrying capacity is ‘medi- consultative.5 ated’ by economic, social, political, cul- After abandoning reference to popula- tural, and technological considerations.7 tion growth in 1998 the current policy Also, government must develop popula- (2002) goes further and explicitly repudi- tion policy with wide input and which ates the idea that population size and respects human rights. These revised growth matter: principles increased the distance between An Australian population policy should population issues and conservation. consider the distribution of human Other changes further qualify the settlement rather than just concentrate party’s concern about population. The upon population size at the national level. policy headed ‘immigration’ in 1995 The continuing de-settlement of rural became ‘immigration and refugees’ in areas must be considered in the light of 2002. In the former document the Greens ecological sustainability and efforts must recognised the environmental implica- be set in place to reverse it in those areas tions arising from population increase where settlement is ecologically benign. through immigration. But the addition of The ecological and social viability of refugees to the policy heading (and to its areas expected to experience great growth content) focused attention away from the needs to be safeguarded, and appropriate environment to human rights. planning processes set in place.6 Immigration, the Greens maintain, The Greens’ current policy thus must be seen within a broader population focuses on population distribution rather policy, which is non-discriminatory, than on an overall national population honours international obligations to policy. Moreover, the 1998 and 2002 accept refugees, and centres largely on revisions discard 1995's first short-term humanitarian and family reunion criteria.8 target of ‘a program to stabilize global These principles have remained population’ and place the emphasis in- essentially the same, but related goals and stead on increasing Australia’s contribu- short-term targets have been extended tion to global aid, family planning, repro- and altered. For example, before the ductive health, and to empowering policy launch for the 1998 federal women. election campaign the Greens, The 1998 and 2002 policies are more immigration policy proposed that involved and explanatory than the 1995 ‘Australia’s voluntary immigration policy. Growing complexity points to a program be reduced as part of a strategy progressive fudging of the issues and the to achieve eventual stabilisation of the increasing timidity with which the Greens Australian population’.9 Subsequent tackled population as well as the fact that policies dropped this strategy entirely and concepts such as sustainable develop- made no recommendation to reduce ment, the precautionary principle, immigration. In fact the targets now intergenerational equity, and ‘green’ openly encourage immigration: technologies have become more common The Australian Greens will work for:

People and Place, vol. 11, no. 2, 2003, page 17 a) a policy of multiculturalism that and cultural needs. However, the new celebrates our Indigenous and immigrant policy also proposes that family reunion history and welcomes further be extended to all interdependent immigration.10 relationships, including same sex and Early policies expressed the belief that intersex relationships, and that funding the presence in Australia of people from for public and civil sector agencies different cultural backgrounds enriched providing services specific to migrants society. However, the most recent ‘immi- (including asylum seekers and refugees) gration and refugees’ policy does not be increased.14 mention cultural enrichment. Instead, it The Greens began obscuring the con- claims that while immigration may con- nection between population and environ- tribute to the population pressure on the mental deterioration during the renewed Australian environment, ‘this concern is debate about immigration reform which tempered by our humanitarian obligation followed the 1996 election of the Coali- to accept refugees and by the social and tion government. Contradicting their economic benefits that immigration pro- existing population policy, they opposed grams can bring’.11 The current policy every government measure designed to reiterates the idea that the voluntary im- better target the selection of family, migration program should be based pre- skilled, and humanitarian categories. dominantly on humanitarian and They also resisted all measures to control family-reunion categories but, in keeping the family migration category despite the with the new emphasis on economics, fact that, in 1996 when the legislation regards the skilled migration category as a was introduced and in 1997 when it was legitimate component of immigration. reintroduced, the Greens’ immigration In their 2001 federal election cam- policy clearly stated that the voluntary paign the Greens launched an immigra- immigration program should be tion and refugee policy that rejected the reduced.15 In 1997, when questioned by idea of zero-net population growth. The Senator Harradine, the Greens leader, focus, they said, should be on consump- Bob Brown said he supported current tion, not numbers, and Australia must levels of immigration — again contra- address immigration as a global citizen, dicting his party’s policies.16 not as a closed state.12 Brown also argued against a 1996 Indeed, globalisation has proved a Federal government proposal to issue particularly seductive idea for the Greens. personal bonds of up to $30,000 to ensure By shifting the focus offshore the Greens that a special category of new migrants convinced themselves there was no settle outside capital cities. Yet, in 1998, Australian population problem. But this the Greens changed their population is a form of denial. As Garret Hardin policy to encourage planning to help ease points out: ‘Calling a ubiquitous problem pressure on major cities: ‘an Australian a ‘world problem’ is useful only if there population policy should consider the is a plausible worldwide solution’.13 distribution of human settlements . . . The 2002 policy revision retained the [the] ecological and social viability of focus on rights of asylum seekers, condi- areas expected to experience great growth tions and services for migrants, support needs to be safeguarded, and appropriate for the preferential family-reunion planning processes set in place’.17 category, and respect for special religious

People and Place, vol. 11, no. 2, 2003, page 18 The 1998 and 2002 policy revisions problem but on the other hand they attempt to overcome these inconsistencies consider manipulating immigration policy and contradictions. But they also represent as too ‘simplistic’ a solution to that a response to changing terms in the problem. Their population policy still national political discourse. At least some calls for ‘balance’ although this ‘balance’ Greens believed that the party’s population is qualified by reference to priorities message became untenable following the described in the immigration policy. rise of Pauline Hanson and One Nation in Meanwhile, their immigration policy has the mid-1990s and the later prominence of increasingly moved away from concern refugees as a political issue. about the impact of increased numbers on According to Christoff, Hanson’s the environment towards a policy of policies highlighted the tensions between putting people first. Stabilist policies the Greens’ universalistic principles and were abandoned because they attracted internationalist policies and more localist criticism as racist and were seen as views.18 Political commentary on inconsistent with humanitarian, human ‘Hansonism’ undermined Greens Party rights objectives ingrained in party policy because it linked their ideas on ideology. As Parkin and Hardcastle note, immigration with those of One Nation. ‘scepticism about immigration does not Although the Greens argued that immi- fit easily into political alliances which gration should be predominantly based on otherwise emphasise the virtues of humanitarian and family reunion criteria humanitarianism, multiculturalism and their policy up until 1998 still called for internationalism’.21 a reduction in immigration ‘as part of a In globalising the population issue the strategy to achieve eventual stabilisation Australian Green Party repositioned itself of the Australian population’. 19 as a social justice party only fragmentally Some commentators viewed this as connected to the cause of conservation in racist, a possibility that may have Australia. Instead, the Greens promote an panicked representatives to the Greens international approach to the environment National Conference held from July 31 to through a global green network and ac- August 2, 1998. Delegates agreed to drop companying global charter. Bob Brown wording about cuts to voluntary immigra- boasts that the Greens are the only global tion and restrictions on concessional party in Australia with objectives paral- entry under the family reunion category. leling those of other global green parties, Deb Foskey, who drafted the policy which are ‘born out of a similar impulse to changes, claims that they were made in combine social justice and environment in response to growing racist sentiment but a new way of looking at the future’.22 also reflected a revaluation of popula- When, during the 2001 federal elec- tion-environment connections. One ob- tion campaign, the Greens’ social justice server commented: ‘The Greens’ mem- priorities became pronounced in their bers who argued for a need to stabilise opposition to the Howard Government’s Australia’s population found themselves position on refugees the socialist left uncomfortably close to One Nation’s applauded: ‘Unlike previous election support for zero-net migration policies’.20 campaigns that focused on environmental Nevertheless, contradictions remain. issues, the Greens moved firmly away On the one hand the Greens still recog- from a single issue party image. Instead, nise the existence of a population they sought to articulate a political

People and Place, vol. 11, no. 2, 2003, page 19 outlook with humanitarian values and two ‘fundamental’ principles. One sympathy for the third world at its principle must take precedence; one must heart’.23 But there is also another way of be fundamental and the other secondary. viewing this reorientation: in 2001 the At present, the Greens consider social Greens aligned themselves with justice their fundamental principle and, in internationalist perspectives rather than their 2001 campaign, they ‘focused more with the needs of conservation in upon the moral indignation over the Australia. treatment “of boat people” and question- The new international alignment re- ing defence links to the United States quired new principles. Accordingly, the than on environmental issues’.26 Greens abandoned their original intention Undoubtedly, the prominence the to limit immigration into Australia and Greens gave to social justice and human stabilise population. Without citing any rights attracted new voters. But the evidence delinking population and envi- appeal is a narrow one. The recent in- ronment the Greens nevertheless now crease in the Greens vote comes largely argue that ‘immigrant numbers should not from a small segment of the electorate. be cut to better protect the environ- Between the 1996 and 2001 federal elec- ment’.24 The Greens’ internationalism tions the total vote for the Greens in- drove them to revise their population creased two and a half times, from two policy and their new population policy in per cent to five per cent. At the same turn allowed them to embrace and adver- time, the proportion of voters with tise their internationalism. These bachelor or higher degrees voting for the changes, they believe, remove the Greens increased four times, from just perception that they are a ‘single-issue’ three per cent of the total of people with party. such qualifications in 1996 to 12 per cent A struggle between internationalism in 2001. The Greens also tripled their and conservation embroiled the Greens vote among the overseas born, from two from the beginning of their formation. per cent of such voters in 1996 to six per Internationalists felt that the party’s em- cent in 2001.27 But no voter profile, such phasis on conservation hampered their as age-group, place of residence, or sex prospects. As early as 1995, when then shows such a dramatic increase as among Democrats leader Cheryl Kernot charged those with tertiary qualifications. Thus by the Greens with being a ‘single-issue far the greatest increase in the Greens fundamentalist party’, members reacted. vote came from the educated elite. The Peter Singer, who stood as a Greens Greens deepened their vote at the senate candidate for Victoria in the 1996 expense of broadening it. There are federal elections, commented that: obvious limits to this strategy. ‘Everyone in the Greens sees the saving The party’s new principles are still of our wilderness and the problems of ambiguous. But their focus on rights and wood-chipping as fundamental issues. justice nevertheless effectively eclipse However, Bob [Brown] has been moving those conservation fundamentals — the Australian Greens towards the model nature has intrinsic worth, does not exist of the German Greens. The main theme I for human consumption, and cannot be will take into the next election will be compromised — that motivated the social justice’.25 movement out of which the Greens Logically, it is not possible to have originally formed. Their current social

People and Place, vol. 11, no. 2, 2003, page 20 justice stance thus heightens divisions of interest groups to arrive at a population between science-based conservationists policy which respects human rights. who value biodiversity and wilderness The basis for Australia’s population policy, and the educated urban environmentalists both domestic and global, must be ecological who value human amenity but are sustainability, intergenerational equity and ill-informed about ecology. social justice. A precautionary approach is Over the last ten years conservation- required in order to take into account the ists have highlighted the growing evi- consequences of human impact on the dence of the human impact on nature in environment. Australia: declining biodiversity; collaps- In order to achieve a sustainable popu- ing marine ecosystems; clearing of native lation, action must be taken on consumption vegetation cover; failing rivers; growing levels and technology use as well as salinity and acidification; and the population size. We must generate less waste subversive spread of exotic species. and implement technologies, such as those During this same time — as conditions based on renewable energy, which are more on the continent worsened and environmentally benign. knowledge of human impacts increased The consumption patterns of many in our — the Greens adopted a passive attitude comparatively wealthy country are towards the population-environment contributing to global as well as to local debate, increasingly championed human environmental problems and we have a rights, and detached themselves from responsibility to current and future gener- conservation. Their lack of principle on ations to ensure that we do not knowingly population size and growth makes them degrade their world. As Australians we also an obstacle to clear thinking about the have a responsibility towards non- human state of the environment in Australia. It species, many of which have already become also impedes our capacity to act to extinct or endangered since European ameliorate its condition. settlement. Government policies and taxation systems are tools which can be used to change Appendix consumption patterns over the medium to long term, and to protect and manage The Green Party’s current (2002) ecosystems vulnerable to human activity. population policy Australia must contribute towards 11. Population achieving a globally sustainable population. 11.1 Principles We should set an example by: Neither the planet, nor any country, can a. managing our own population growth sustain continued human population growth at in accordance with more equitable the level of resource use of most Australians. consumption patterns in relation to the Four Earths would be required for all human international context; and inhabitants to live at the level that most of us b. redirecting the bulk of aid towards do in this country. However, the relationship eradicating poverty and towards those between people and environments is a programmes which empower women. complex one, not reducible simply to carrying In attaining a sustainable population capacity, but mediated by economic, social, Australia must shift its involvement in a political, cultural and technological competitive world economy to a more considerations. The Australian government cooperative, regional, self-sufficient economy should consult with the widest possible range based on equality and human rights.

People and Place, vol. 11, no. 2, 2003, page 21 The Australian Greens will work towards: 11.2 Goals a. implementing the Programme of Action An Australian population policy should agreed to by the International Conference consider the distribution of human settlements on Population and Development in 1994 by rather than just concentrate upon population lifting the level of our contribution to size at the national level. The continuing programmes which empower women and de-settlement of rural areas must be increase their access to a wide range of safe considered in the light of ecological and family planning options in our overseas aid social sustainability and efforts must be set in budget to 4 per cent of the total aid budget; place to reverse it in those areas where b. legislation to ensure that Australian settlement is ecologically benign. The aid reaches 0.7 per cent; ecological and social viability of areas c. the direction of aid to those expected to experience great growth needs to programmes which benefit the very poor be safeguarded, and appropriate planning and to those which increase women’s processes set in place. Human settlements control over their lives; and should be designed and built to minimise d. ensuring that Australian family environmental and maximise social planning programmes, both domestically well-being. Investing in the social well-being and overseas, deliver services in the of the entire population should be the main context of reproductive health aim of governments, so that there are publicly programmes which increase the power of provided services of the highest possible girls and women to determine their own standard. These services should include reproductive lives, and increase the education, infrastructure, health, employment understanding of men of their and income support. reproductive responsibilities.

11.3 Short Term Targets

References 1 Australian Greens ‘Care for the Earth Policy’: ‘Population’ Full Policy (Australian Greens) [online] 2001. Available from: URL: www.greens.org.au, Accessed: 24/06/02 and Australian Greens Population Policy 1998 and 1995. The last two were obtained from: E-mail correspondence: G. Lynga, Green Population Policy. E-mail to N. Sloan ([email protected]) Wednesday, 11September 2002. 2 Australian Greens 2001, 1998, and 1995, op. cit., ‘Care for the Earth Policy’: ‘Population’ Full Policy (Australian Greens) [online] 2001 Available from: URL: www.greens. org. au (access date: 24/06/02) and Australian Greens Population Policy 1998 and 1995. Obtained from G. Lynga, op. cit. 3 Australian Greens Population Policy, 1995, obtained from ibid. 4 Australian Greens, 2001 and 1995, op. cit. 5 Australian Greens, 1998, op. cit 6 Australian Greens, 2001, op. cit. 7 Australian Greens, 2001 and 1998, op. cit. 8 Australian Greens ‘Society Policy’ and ‘Immigration and Refugees’ Full Policy (Australian Greens) [online], September 2001. Available from: URL: www.greens.org.au , Accessed: 24/06/02 9 ‘Neither’. Are the Greens anti-immigration? www .neither.org/neitherpgs/elec1998/pol-issue-society. shtm12.htm , 23 September, 1998, Accessed: 13/08/02 (Authors’ emphasis) 10 Australian Greens, ‘Society Policy’ and ‘Immigration and Refugees’, op. cit. 11 ibid. 12 Green policy launch for 2001 Federal Election. Sydney IMC, 2 September, 2001 13 G. Hardin, Living Within Limits: Ecology, Economics, and Population Taboos, Oxford University Press, New York, 1993, p. 278 (original emphasis) 14 Australian Greens ‘Society Policy’ and ‘Immigration and Refugees’, op. cit.

People and Place, vol. 11, no. 2, 2003, page 22 15 B. Birrell, Immigration Reform in Australia: Coalition Government Proposals and Outcomes since March 1996, Melbourne: Centre for Population and Urban Research, Monash University. November 1997 16 Senate Hansard, 11 November 1997, p. 485 17 Australian Greens ‘Care for the Earth Policy’: ‘Population’, www.greens.org.au. August 2000, Accessed: 24/06/02 18 P. Christoff, ‘Hanson and the Greens’, Arena Magazine, no. 27, February-March 1997, p. 30 19 ‘Neither’, op.cit. 20 F. Davis, ‘Greens change their immigration policy’, Green Left Weekly, no. 333, 1998, p. 9 21 A. Parkin and L. Hardcastle, ‘Immigration and Ethnic Affairs Policy’, in D. Woodward, A. Parkin and J. Summers (Eds), Government Politics, Power and Policy in Australia, sixth edition, South Melbourne, Longman, 1997, p. 496 22 Bob Brown quoted in R. Croom, ‘A sea change: an interview with Bob Brown’, Island (Sandy Bay, Tasmania), no. 74, Autumn, 1998, pp. 90-91 23 A. Dellit, ‘Greens capture Humanitarian vote’, Green Left Weekly, no. 472, 2001, p. 3 24 ‘Australian Greens call for changes to immigration policy’, AAP News: World Reporter, 6 November, 2001 25 Singer responds to Kernot in: John. T. Rankine, ‘Greens gear up for federal election’, Green Left Weekly, no. 204, 1995, p. 9 26 H. Manning, ‘The Australian Greens and the handicap of left legacies’ AQ Contemporary Analysis, vol. 74, no. 3, 2001, p. 19 27 Australian Electoral Survey, post election survey data, unpublished, data provided by the Centre for Population and Urban Research, Monash University

People and Place, vol. 11, no. 2, 2003, page 23